Hi Jorj
I am sorry if I misrepresented your position, I was just talking about the two logical extremes, Absolute laws, based on the character of an absolute law giver, or given that no law giver exists, the logical conclusion that we have to make them up as we go. You seem to land somewhere in the middle, I don't find that to be compellingly logical but you are of course entitled to your view. You seem to hold that "enlightened self interest" leads to the same destination as those who travel the other route, without having to haul the baggage of religion around with you. I would simply beg to differ and ask you this. If the average pedophile could abuse whatever child he wished and knew for certain that he would never get caught, and thereby have to suffer the consequences of his actions, Why would that be wrong? Why is the idea of a collective good anymore valid than the idea that one must gather all the personal gusto that one can, before they die? If there is no grounding for your view other than personal preference, I would suggest that is not very firm.
Simply stating that just the way things are is a statement, not an argument. Why are they that way, and could a fixed moral order be a clue that there is fixed moral order giver?
That would seem most likely to me.
Greg |
